If you want them totally random but evenly splitted by group among the players, is not possible because each region can't be used for more than one single SP.With the 44 system you will have the two groups splitted equally and i think that adding the underlying neutrals you can use them with all game size. But they are NOT random.The player with Accuser A will have always Landowner A, the player with Accuser B will have always Landowner B, etc etc...

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

thenobodies80 wrote:If you want them totally random but evenly splitted by group among the players, is not possible because each region can't be used for more than one single SP.With the 44 system you will have the two groups splitted equally and i think that adding the underlying neutrals you can use them with all game size. But they are NOT random.The player with Accuser A will have always Landowner A, the player with Accuser B will have always Landowner B, etc etc...

Right. So you probably want to put all your options into random.org and have pairs come out, so Accuser A is with Landowner D, A B with L A, etc., if you choose this.

thenobodies80 wrote:If you want them totally random but evenly splitted by group among the players, is not possible because each region can't be used for more than one single SP.With the 44 system you will have the two groups splitted equally and i think that adding the underlying neutrals you can use them with all game size. But they are NOT random.The player with Accuser A will have always Landowner A, the player with Accuser B will have always Landowner B, etc etc...

Right. So you probably want to put all your options into random.org and have pairs come out, so Accuser A is with Landowner D, A B with L A, etc., if you choose this.

Also, slightly related question while we're here -- if you've coded an initial troop number for a starting position, how is that handled in a manual deployment game? Can you redistribute those troops, or are they locked in place? How about if you haven't coded an initial troop number?

Yeah, I don't think you can code a starting position with neutral value.

Evil DIMwit wrote:Also, slightly related question while we're here -- if you've coded an initial troop number for a starting position, how is that handled in a manual deployment game? Can you redistribute those troops, or are they locked in place? How about if you haven't coded an initial troop number?

Have you ever played City Mogul manual? You can't drop armies on a starting position that has a starting value.

Evil DIMwit wrote:Also, slightly related question while we're here -- if you've coded an initial troop number for a starting position, how is that handled in a manual deployment game? Can you redistribute those troops, or are they locked in place? How about if you haven't coded an initial troop number?

Have you ever played City Mogul manual? You can't drop armies on a starting position that has a starting value.

To answer some of the questions that have been raised:Yes, territories can be coded start positions, and as neutral. The start position takes precedence, and so if not allocated with other starts will revert to neutral. The number of armies (player or neutral) doesn't have to be the same in the coding for the starting position/neutral tags.In manual deployment games, coded starting positions will start with the number of armies specified in the code. I thought you could drop more armies on them during the deployment phase though...

Oh, I'll merge this with the other XML Start Positions Topic

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

Evil DIMwit wrote:Also, slightly related question while we're here -- if you've coded an initial troop number for a starting position, how is that handled in a manual deployment game? Can you redistribute those troops, or are they locked in place? How about if you haven't coded an initial troop number?

Have you ever played City Mogul manual? You can't drop armies on a starting position that has a starting value.

Wait a minute... if that were the case then City Mogul would be unplayable in manual - because you only get starting positions...

Evil DIMwit wrote:Also, slightly related question while we're here -- if you've coded an initial troop number for a starting position, how is that handled in a manual deployment game? Can you redistribute those troops, or are they locked in place? How about if you haven't coded an initial troop number?

Have you ever played City Mogul manual? You can't drop armies on a starting position that has a starting value.

Wait a minute... if that were the case then City Mogul would be unplayable in manual - because you only get starting positions...

I agree with Benny here - although I haven't witnessed it.

C.

Or playable but it should not count for the manual medal

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

Evil DIMwit wrote:Also, slightly related question while we're here -- if you've coded an initial troop number for a starting position, how is that handled in a manual deployment game? Can you redistribute those troops, or are they locked in place? How about if you haven't coded an initial troop number?

Have you ever played City Mogul manual? You can't drop armies on a starting position that has a starting value.

Wait a minute... if that were the case then City Mogul would be unplayable in manual - because you only get starting positions...

Evil DIMwit wrote:Also, slightly related question while we're here -- if you've coded an initial troop number for a starting position, how is that handled in a manual deployment game? Can you redistribute those troops, or are they locked in place? How about if you haven't coded an initial troop number?

Have you ever played City Mogul manual? You can't drop armies on a starting position that has a starting value.

Wait a minute... if that were the case then City Mogul would be unplayable in manual - because you only get starting positions...

I agree with Benny here - although I haven't witnessed it.

C.

Round 1 (manual dropping round) of a City Mogul game.

You have no troops to deploy. [End Deployment]

Well, that makes sense if every territory has a fixed initial number -- not that you can't deploy manually to them, but that in manual you only get troops from non-fixed territories. In City Mogul there is nowhere to take troops from.

Third Crusade is a better example, since that mixes coded SP and non-coded territories. Indeed, here's a composite screencap of a manual Third Crusade game right after the deployment turn:

Click image to enlarge.

Every starting position except Cairo has been deployed to with no incident.

Right, so in Manual deployment games, starting positions (with coded starting armies) are not 'overridden' in the same way as the standard 3 from normal territories. Where deployments are able to made, these can be made on any available territory.

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

I've just been through the drop process for a tool I'm writing so here is a summary:

1. Some neutral starts (but not necessarily all) can be deployed on in manual.2. Starting Positions Ignored if #starts < #players3. If #starts < #players AND starts are non-neutral then one player can get all starts in the drop4. Starting positions should be equal in number of territories5. Using starting neutrals to enforce starting positions could lead to an unfair drop

1. Some neutral starts (but not necessarily all) can be deployed on in manual.

Manual deployment on neutral starting positions should not differ from automatic deployment.

Example: 8 starts, 6 players. All starts are neutral.

Automatic will assign 6 of these starts - even if they are neutral.So manual ought to do the same. 6 starts should be allowed to be deployed on with 2 remaining inaccessible.City Mogul would be unplayable in manual otherwise.

2. Starting Positions Ignored if #starts < #players

The following logic must be executed for number of starting positions:

Number of starts per player = lowest whole number (total starts / number of players)

(For 2 players number of players is 3)

So if you have total starts/number of players < 1 then number of starts per player = 0

i.e. if total starts < number of players then starting positions are ignored.So you must have at least 3 starting positions otherwise they are completely ignored for any number of players.

3. If #starts < #players AND starts are non-neutral then one player can get all starts in the drop

If you have less starting positions than number of players then starting positions ignored (see 2).That means one player could get every starting position if they were non-neutral.If all these starting positions were neutral then this is not possible, nobody gets them.

4. Starting positions should be equal in number of territories

This is because one player will end up with more territories than others at end of start positions assignment.Then the remaining territory assignment must compensate for this imbalance.

If the number of territories is not enough to compensate all players with least territories then players will have an unevennumber of territories at game start. You will also get complicated manual deployment for this compensation.

Silly Examples to illustrate

8 starting positions. 7 of them have 1 territory. The 8th has 20 territories. The whole map has 100 non-neutral territories.

8 players. Assign all starting positions. I player has 20 which is more than anyone else can have now.

5. Using starting neutrals to enforce starting positions could lead to an unfair drop

All non-neutrals are equally assigned to the players. A combination of these could lead to an unfair dropdepending on the map.Using starting positions instead forces these to be separately allocated, although you get the same effectif #starts < #players and all starts are non-neutral.

chipv wrote:4. Starting positions should be equal in number of territories

This is because one player will end up with more territories than others at end of start positions assignment.Then the remaining territory assignment must compensate for this imbalance.

If the number of territories is not enough to compensate all players with least territories then players will have an unevennumber of territories at game start. You will also get complicated manual deployment for this compensation.

Silly Examples to illustrate

8 starting positions. 7 of them have 1 territory. The 8th has 20 territories. The whole map has 100 non-neutral territories.

8 players. Assign all starting positions. I player has 20 which is more than anyone else can have now.

You are right, this is important to consider, but need not be a hard and fast rule. The single territories might be quite secure, while the twenty are difficult to hold. In such a case, the twenty territories might be defined with <territory start="2"> while the other positions might have one territory with <territory start="15"> (or more, or less, whatever was argued out in the gameplay discussion). The key is balance, not necessarily symmetry.

Further to chipv's comments, it is possible to have as few as two starting positions. In theory, you could divide a map into two halves, with half in each position; in a 1v1 game, each player would then start with half the map (with no territories neutral).

Additionally, starting positions can be unequal in size - although this will likely lead to an unbalanced start. However, you could use unequal starts in combination with starting army values, so that while both players have differing territory counts, they could still have the same army count.

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

MrBenn wrote:Further to chipv's comments, it is possible to have as few as two starting positions. In theory, you could divide a map into two halves, with half in each position; in a 1v1 game, each player would then start with half the map (with no territories neutral).

I had recently noticed that BOB had trouble with FOW Nukes. I'm not big on either setting, but the Bit by Bit Tournament is using them, e.g. Game 6825564 where BOB thinks Jobiwan still has two territories, but the log clearly states that Jobiwan has been eliminated. Perhaps BOB should act on those log entries, though what to do about the counts is not clear. Perhaps assume the terriories were nuked and are now neutral.

Starting positions are divided equally among the players. The neutral player stands only when you have to divide "standard" territories.If the players are more than the starting positions, they will ignored and all the territories that are part of components of starting positions will be considered part of the "standard starting pot".

With your example in a 1vs1 you'll have :

1 player 16 SP2 player 16 SPeverything else start neutral (32)

Must be said that it doesn't match so much with fog games because you know where the other player is.

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

Has anything changed on the use of Starting positions since way back in 2011? This is the first post I've seen on the subject. I think I know what I would need to do for what I want, but I just want to make sure I am not coding the hard way...